Status: Unknown

Assertion

The human body has roughly 96,000 kilometres of blood vessels.

Reasoning

Assumptions

* Assumption: The figure of approximately 96,000 kilometers (or about 60,000 miles) refers to end-to-end lengths of all blood vessels in the human body combined.
* Assumption: The calculation accounts for both arteries and veins as well as capillaries.
* Assumption: There is no significant variation between individuals’ vascular networks that would substantially alter this average estimate.
* Assumption: Measurement techniques are consistent and accurate, though acknowledging the inherent variability in biological systems.
* Assumption: The statement aims to provide an illustrative comparison of blood vessel length rather than precise individual measurement details.
* Assumption: Blood vessels’ lengths vary due to different factors such as age, health status, or genetic differences among individuals. This variation is considered when generalizing the estimate.

Fact Checker Output

<|assistant|> 1. True – The assertion refers to a collective measurement of blood vessels, which are numerous and complex in their arrangement within the human body. It’s plausible that scientists have estimated this length by summing up lengths from all types of vessels (arteries, veins, capillaries) if no exact individual count is available.

2. True – The calculation would need to account for all types of blood vessels – arteries, which carry blood away from the heart; veins, which return it, and capillaries, which are involved in nutrient and gas exchange at tissue levels. Each type has a different role and thus contributes differently to overall vascular length.

3. False – While no two individuals have exactly the same vascular network (due to genetic variation), there is enough commonality that an average estimate can be meaningful for comparative purposes, even though it won’t apply universally.

4. True – Measurement techniques in biological research are indeed subject to variability due to factors like measurement precision and interpretation. However, estimates can still provide a useful approximation when done consistently across studies.

5. True – The statement

Model Used

microsoft/Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct-gguf

Script Name

fact_checker_mongodb.py

Script Code

import os
import sys
import requests
from langchain_openai.llms import OpenAI
from langchain.prompts import PromptTemplate
from dotenv import load_dotenv
from statements import get_random_statement
from mongodb_helper import insert_record  # Import MongoDB helper functions
from wordpress_helper import create_wordpress_post  # Import WordPress helper functions
import html

# Load environment variables from .env file
load_dotenv()

def fact_check(assertion):
    llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))

    # Define the prompt templates
    assertion_template = """{assertion}\n\n"""
    assertion_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertion"], template=assertion_template)
    
    assumptions_template = """Here is a statement:
    {statement}
    Make a bullet point list of the assumptions required to support the above statement.\n\n"""
    assumptions_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["statement"], template=assumptions_template)
    
    fact_checker_template = """Here is a bullet point list of assertions:
    {assertions}
    For each assumption, determine whether it is true or false. Explain your reasoning.\n\n"""
    fact_checker_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertions"], template=fact_checker_template)
    
    answer_template = """
    Here is the information to classify the statement:
    {facts}

    Based on the above information, how would you classify the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
    - True: [Explanation]
    - False: [Explanation]
    - Debatable: [Explanation]
    """
    answer_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["facts"], template=answer_template)
    
    # Format prompts and extract the string content
    formatted_assertion = assertion_prompt.format_prompt(assertion=assertion).text
    assertion_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assertion)
    
    formatted_assumptions = assumptions_prompt.format_prompt(statement=assertion_output).text
    assumptions_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assumptions)
    
    formatted_fact_checker = fact_checker_prompt.format_prompt(assertions=assumptions_output).text
    fact_checker_output = llm.invoke(formatted_fact_checker)
    
    formatted_answer = answer_prompt.format_prompt(facts=fact_checker_output).text
    final_output = llm.invoke(formatted_answer)
    
    return {
        "assertion_output": assertion_output,
        "assumptions_output": assumptions_output,
        "fact_checker_output": fact_checker_output,
        "final_output": final_output,
    }

def extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output):
    llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))
    
    extraction_template = """
    Here is a final output of a fact-checking process:
    {final_output}
    
    Based on the above text, what is the classification of the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
    - True: [Explanation]
    - False: [Explanation]
    - Debatable: [Explanation]
    """
    
    extraction_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["final_output"], template=extraction_template)
    formatted_prompt = extraction_prompt.format_prompt(final_output=final_output).text
    extraction_output = llm.invoke(formatted_prompt).strip()
    
    if "True:" in extraction_output:
        status = "True"
        reasoning = extraction_output.split("True:", 1)[1].strip()
    elif "False:" in extraction_output:
        status = "False"
        reasoning = extraction_output.split("False:", 1)[1].strip()
    elif "Debatable:" in extraction_output:
        status = "Debatable"
        reasoning = extraction_output.split("Debatable:", 1)[1].strip()
    else:
        status = "Unknown"
        reasoning = extraction_output
    
    return status, reasoning

if __name__ == "__main__":
    if len(sys.argv) > 1:
        assertion = sys.argv[1]
    else:
        assertion = get_random_statement()
    
    print(assertion)
    submission = fact_check(assertion)
    
    # Print the detailed outputs to inspect their structure
    for key, value in submission.items():
        print(f"{key}: {value}")
    
    # Extract the final output for status determination and reasoning
    final_output = submission['final_output']
    status, reasoning = extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output)
    
    # Print the final status and reasoning
    print(final_output)
    print(f"Status: {status}")
    print(f"Reasoning: {reasoning}")

    # Record the result in MongoDB
    try:
        print("Attempting to insert record into MongoDB...")
        insert_record(
            script_name=__file__,
            script_code=html.escape(open(__file__).read()),
            assertion=assertion,
            status=status,
            submission=submission,  # Store the entire submission for detailed analysis
            reasoning=reasoning,
            model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")
        )
        print("Record inserted into MongoDB successfully.")
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"Failed to insert record into MongoDB: {e}")
    
    # Create a blog post on WordPress
    blog_title = f"Fact Check: {assertion}"
    blog_content = f"""
    <h1>Status: {status}</h1>
    <h2>Assertion</h2>
    <p>{assertion}</p>
    <h2>Reasoning</h2>
    <p>{reasoning}</p>
    <h3>Assumptions</h3>
    <p>{submission['assumptions_output']}</p>
    <h3>Fact Checker Output</h3>
    <p>{submission['fact_checker_output']}</p>
    <h4>Model Used</h4>
    <p>{os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")}</p>
    <h4>Script Name</h4>
    <p>fact_checker_mongodb.py</p>
    <h4>Script Code</h4>
    <pre>{html.escape(open(__file__).read())}</pre>
    """
    create_wordpress_post(blog_title, blog_content, status)